User talk:EthicsScholar93
Welcome![edit]
Hi EthicsScholar93! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Seemplez 06:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Ibo van de Poel[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Ibo van de Poel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.tudelft.nl/en/tpm/about-the-faculty/departments/values-technology-and-innovation/people/full-professors/profdrir-ir-ibo-van-de-poel/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Ibo van de Poel moved to draftspace[edit]
An article you recently created, Ibo van de Poel, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creepTalk 18:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Ibo van de Poel has a new comment[edit]
Your submission at Articles for creation: Ibo van de Poel has been accepted[edit]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Concern regarding Draft:Steven Umbrello[edit]
Hello, EthicsScholar93. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Steven Umbrello, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The article Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
EthicsScholar93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to contest these accusations and their associated deletions as wholly unwarranted. EthicsScholar93 (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
EthicsScholar93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Reasons and rebuttals against the block: 1. the blocker themselves says that "Actually, this makes me suspect they're not the same person. I would think somebody with this level of advanced academic training would know how to spell their own name on the first try." which is self-admission that this account is not the sock of stevenumbrello 2. all of the many edits made are unrelated to the apparent "sockmaster's research as sources". Please note, I have a successful (and the only full-page) from AfC on Ibo van de Peol, which is entirely unrelated to the 'sockmaster' that they are accusing me of. 3. Despite me trying to create a Steven Umbrello page via AfC, it was my first attempt at page creation and was still fooling around with Wiki at the time. It is only circumstantial that another account Arkanbir has made a person page on them, given they are notable. The vast majority of contributions across wiki have been updating references. The blocker claims that "EthicsScholar93 is being used to edit a number of pages to include suspected sockmaster's research as sources", however, this is actually unsurprising since that research by the scholar is actually highly narrow and there is limited new research (2020-2021) on those topics, so it is hardly shocking that they would be included in those particular pages In sum, the vast majority of my edits are updating existing pages to include the newest research on those topics. However, given the current research output on those topics (i use `google Scholar notifications for boolean search strings of key words) I aim to insert all new top-level scholarly research (all of which is third-party verifiable and actually prestigious publications) into the wiki stream. Secondly, the only AfC I have is of someone other than the accused sockmaster 'stevenumbrello'. Likewise, the blocker admin themselves claim that "I would think somebody with this level of advanced academic training would know how to spell their own name on the first try." which is, of their own admission, a reason to beleive that my account is not a sockmaster of 'stevenumbrello' EthicsScholar93 (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.